Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Patrick Clawson Discusses the Iran Nuclear Deal  CSPAN  July 23, 2017 8:30am-9:01am EDT

8:30 am
recommending states need to do a better job, would there be federal dollars to pay for upgraded things? guest: that is a good question. one of our commissioners, a democratic commissioner, product that very issue. that has a problem for many , county governments not getting enough money for voting equipment. that would be an issue we would look at. of the commission looking at voter integrity, thank you for being with us. i want to share with you a tweet from linn energy -- meghan mccain. senator mccain underwent surgery. you can see that photograph of the senator wearing a hat to cover his head and shoulders.
8:31 am
meghan mccain tweeted this yesterday. we wanted to share it with you. senator mccain's absence will be felt this week as the senate takes up the health care debate. we are not sure when he will be coming back. he is battling brain cancer. we wish him the best. we will turn our attention to the iran nuclear deal reaffirmed this past week by president trump. what is next with that deal. and later, the 50th anniversary of the detroit riots. we will look back at what happened early morning on july 23, 1967. you're watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal" on the sunday morning, july 23. we welcome our c-span radio audience as well. we are back in a moment.
8:32 am
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tonight. >> when we look at president obama's domestic legacy, i think there are two good things that are very important that will have long-lasting, good consequences for the united states that can be summarized in four words. kagan,otomayor and elena his nominees to the supreme court. >> the second of our two-part interview. whichks about his book covers president obama's life up to his winning the presidency. >> i think the point to emphasize is over the course of his presidency, there were scores of people in illinois who whoknown him years earlier
8:33 am
were deeply disappointed with the trajectory of the obama presidency and disappointed in two ways. heber one, disappointed forgot many of the people, most of the people, who were essential to his political rise. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." today for on cspan3 an american history tv live special. at noon, the pulitzer ande-winning historian editorial-page editor. the formertern, detroit police chief and former detroit "free press" journalist. an american history tv special live today at noon eastern on
8:34 am
cspan3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back patrick clawson, research director at the washington institute. we want to focus on the iran nuclear deal put in place by president obama and reaffirmed this past week by president trump. explain what he did and why. guest: on the one hand, he certified iran is not violating the deal. at the same time, he puts new sanctions on it on and threatened to take further steps if iran does not release some american citizens it is holding. host: what does this mean for iran and the u.s.? guest: trump administration is trying to shift the focus to iran policy as a whole and arguing iran sanctions are troubling and it wants to concentrate on the whole package of traveling actions iran is engaged in.
8:35 am
host: i want to remind our audience what candidate trump said on the campaign trail running for president. let's watch. [video clip] the biggest: concern with the deal is not necessarily the iran will violated because as you know, it has. the bigger problem is they can keep the terms by possibly running out the clock. and of course, they will keep the billions and billions of dollars we so stupidly and foolishly gave them. [applause] donald trump: the deal does not even require iran to dismantle its nuclear capability. yes, it places limits on its military nuclear program for only a certain number of years. but when those restrictions expire, iran will have an
8:36 am
industrial sized military nuclear capability ready to go and with zero provision for delay no matter how bad iran's behavior is. terrible, terrible situation that we are all placed in, and especially israel. host: donald trump in march of last year. what changed in the last year and a half? guest: not much. as he said, the nuclear deal at its best is going to be a pause in iran's nuclear program. the obama administration was hopeful during because it would be possible to persuade iran to change directions. iran insisted the deal acknowledge iran could have this industrial sized near military capability after the deal expires. that remains the case. host: the new sanctions would do
8:37 am
what? under the united states the obama and trump administration has been focusing sanctions on nonnuclear activities in the aftermath of the nuclear deal. that would be about terrorism, ballistic missiles, and human rights abuses. we will hear from former president obama in a moment. walk us through why this deal was put in place and the benefits for the u.s. in that region of the world. guest: what the deal does is cause iran's nuclear program. host: for how many years? guest: different aspects. basically the answer is seven to 10 years. deal woulds this wi empower iranian moderates and iran decide to engage with the world on other areas as well. it did not work out so well. certainly, the trump
8:38 am
administration thinks that was a foolish hope. host: here is president barack obama in july of 2015. [video clip] president obama: i strongly believe our national security interests now depend on preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which means without a diplomatic resolution, either i or a future u.s. president would face a decision about whether or not to allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or whether to use our military to stop it. put simply. new deal means a greater chance of more war in the middle east. give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. if any worst-case scenario, iran violates the deal, the same options available to me today will be available to any u.s. president in the future. and i have no doubt that 10 or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in
8:39 am
a far stronger position with iran further away from a weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the iranian program. for this reason, i believe it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. host: as you hear from former president obama, it goes back to the old line from the reagan era -- trust but verify. are we verifying enough? is iran cooperating enough? guest: iran is pushing the deal in certain areas. we have agreed to let them do that. betroth administration has signaled it will not be as cooperative about that kind of pushing. iran has not violated the deal agreed to sleet -- egregiously. instead, it seems to have decided to run out the clock. doingile, what they are
8:40 am
up its has stepped support for various insurgent groups across the region and for odious regimes like that in syria. host: let's bring in our callers and listeners. our guest is patrick clawson. we are talking about the nuclear deal put in place by president obama, reaffirmed this past week by president obama. good morning from indiana. caller: good morning. one of the main problems when you discuss an issue like this is the american news media is one-sided news. we only get one side of issues like this. rose" a dayharlie or two ago, and he had the iranian nuclear negotiator with john kerry. he must have been on other media programs in this country. why couldn't you get him on the program so we could get his
8:41 am
point of view? iaea ision, steve, the the one who certifies, and i think they have done so at least six times, that iran is in compliance with this agreement. why can't you get someone from who i think is more objective than your guest? the media unfortunately with issues like this is one-sided issues. you could have gotten zarif. it seems like you should have been able to get an iaea person. we have to get away from one-sided news. clawson have patrick and we would love to have him as well. we have an open invitation to him and john kerry. guest: the issues between the united states and iran are much broader than the nuclear program. focusump administration's
8:42 am
has been on changing the conversation from being just about the nuclear program to talking about iran policy as a whole. afraide matters, i am the iaea is by no means an expert. zarif is a charming man but unfortunately has little control over those causing trouble in iran. revolutionary guards do not report to iran's president and pay very little attention to dr. zarif. host: democrats line, good morning. the washington institute for near east policy is lobbyists masquerading as a think tank. i would like to draw your attention to an article in "business insider" from 2012. "lobbyist says israel should create a false like to start a war with
8:43 am
israel." that is a reference to guest that suggests the united states should provoke iran into a war so wehe united states will cause this ally to drop nuclear weapons on them. one thing that should be known is your guest promotes the interests of the state of israel, like every other think there like the american enterprise institute. i like to say to your guest that we are not all as stupid as you think we are. steve, you have a good day. thanks. host: patrick clawson? guest: there are about a quarter million people out there who have seen you to in which a 911 truther accuses me of trying to provoke a war with iran. a number of publications and written about that. i said i hope there is no confrontation and as tensions
8:44 am
get worse, i think the united states should wait to see whether iran initiates military action weather than the united states ever initiating military action. still hold to is that there are no circumstances under which the united states should initiate military action was iran --with iran. we hope they do not initiate military action against us, but they have seized american sailors and marines and urged allies to attack u.s. ships. we cannot be 100% certain the iranians will follow the wise course of staying with diplomacy rather than military force. host: a very different situation when the shah was in control in iran prior to 1979. at that point, we had a close alliance with iran even know the shah was often brutal on some people.
8:45 am
do you see that renewing anytime in the next 10 to 20 years? guest: the supreme leader of iran is extremely suspicious about the united states' intentions in the region and sees opposition to the united states as a on a mental principle of the islamic revolution. says itlutionary guard agrees with him. it is hard to see that ideology in iran changing anytime soon. perhaps it might ver. many iranians would like to see better relationships between iran and the united states. wheres a point revolutionary guard disagree with the people. it seems unlikely under the current government in iran. host: is there a real disparity between what the people are saying and what the leaders are doing? guest: certainly. that is one thing that terrifies
8:46 am
the supreme leader and revolutionary guards. as recent elections showed, the majority of the iranian people are not very enthusiastic, to put it mildly, about the revolutionary objectives of the leadership and the revolutionary guards. host: have the sanctions hurt the iranian economy? guest: the e.u. sanctions have hurt the iranian economy. unfortunately, they are more a chainsaw than a scalpel. many of the people they hurt are the people who would favor better u.s.-iran relations. host: james is joining us from tennessee on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. if you remember the negotiations with john kerry, they went on forever and ever, give-and-take. we made a bill with the country who is totally against us,
8:47 am
working with korea, and we expect it to work. weren't sanctions -- the sanctions working prior to the deal and couldn't the sanctions have been modified working with russia to get people the money and power instead of the people that live there? i have a close friend of 30 years from iran who came here during the hostage crisis, and he could not go back to see his mother when she was dying because they would never let him back out of the country. host: thanks for the call. we will get a response. guest: the objective the obama administration had with the sanctions was to get iran to the negotiating table. the far as the obama administration was concerned, as soon as the iranians returned to the table and we were involved in talking about a nuclear deal,
8:48 am
this showed sanctions work. some people thought the sanctions should have been to undermine the regime. that was never the objective of the obama administration. as far as they're concerned, the sanctions were successful achieving what they had in mind. host: let's go to virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning. know about any reporting between -- on the relationship between iran and north korea and the relationship russia, and syria and how this plays into the iran nuclear deal. did north korea come up in discussions at all and the discussion they were selling arms to one another? also, one more thing. what about the payoff that took
8:49 am
the captives out of iran and the millions of dollars obama sent to iran to get those hostages out? thank you. guest: it has been history why north korea and iran have not -- it has been a mystery why north korea and iran have not cooperated more. fortunately for us, the iranians seem determined to proceed on their own building their own missiles a nuclear program so cooperation between the sides has been less than we feared. the nuclear deal does have language which forbids corporation between iran -- cooperation between iran and other countries except on safety-related issues. let's hope that is what happens. host: is it safe for americans to travel to toronto -- tehran? guest: it is inconsistent. intoamericans go to iran
8:50 am
her groups and have a wonderful time because the iranian people are very welcoming towards americans. however, individual americans who go, especially iranian americans who go, have run into trouble quite a bit. that is particularly true for scholars. i have written books about iran. i would love to go there to research but i don't dare. host: what is your concern? , what isre iran iran your biggest worry? guest: like this researcher convicted for 10 years. he had been working on iranian history and yet he was accused of spying. the regime, as we saw with the hostage crisis with the united states embassy many years ago, for domestic, political reasons,
8:51 am
hardliners will take people prisoner to make points against the more moderate political opponents. host: the next caller from jackson, mississippi. lee on the independents line with patrick clawson talking about the iran nuclear deal. caller: good morning. i would like to note one thing about the first caller. i watch c-span. i am a vietnam veteran. i watch this. i want to leave one notation. this is a six-nation deal. host: let's put those nations on the screen. you make a very important point. donations include the united states, u.k., great britain, france, germany, china, and russia -- those nations include the united states, u.k., great
8:52 am
britain, france, germany, china, and russia. , money weney was sent gave iran, billions of dollars. that was iran's money we gave back to them. and not one said that was iran's money. what about national sovereignty? and itation is sovereign can do whatever it wants to with its resources. host: thank you, lee. there are fact that six parties in this deal is one of the major reasons why the trump administration has decided to stick with it. while they may not like the deal, it is an international agreement. they know that our partners like the deal. the trump team's attitude has been bad deal but walking away from it would be worse because it would annoy those other
8:53 am
important countries. host: you talk about the iranian religious leader. but what about president rouhani , how much power and influence does he have as president? guest: the supreme leader, not the president, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. the supreme leader appoints the head of the television and radio news. the supreme leader has the authority to overrule any actions by parliament and the president. any supreme leader has the authority to dismiss the president. it kind of ties the hands of the president. if i could comment about the money, it was a remarkable ability of the obama administration to make what was a good deal for the united states about settling a court dispute. it took hard work on the part of the obama administration to take what had been an objective for 30 years, settling the dispute, and make it look like it was a cash for hostages deal.
8:54 am
i have to congratulate the obama team on the job you did on that. host: let's go to zach on the independents line. caller: i think the nuclear deal allows us to shift our weight away from saudi arabia to a more balanced posture in the middle east. think saudi arabia has been a very bad manager of the region. iranians have proven to be more pragmatic and so have the turks. they are proven to be more pragmatic in resolving regional issues. they have outplayed the saudis on every issue, whether it is the nuclear deal, yemen, syria. they are proven to be better players. we ought to utilize the nuclear deal to shift our weight and start having more of a twinkle
8:55 am
are -- twin pillar policy like nixon did in the middle east. host: thank you. guest: there were some in the obama administration that hoped that would be the direction the united states could go. since the nuclear deal, iran has doubled down on its support for insurgent groups undermining internationally recognized governments in yemen, lebanon, and the palestinian authority. iran has also increased support for the assad regime in syria, which has driven 6 million people out of the country and displaced 6 million people at home. warned us if we did a nuclear deal that iran would turn to more instability by nonnuclear means. our complaint about the saudis is that they have not thrown their weight around the region and have sat on their hands and been mostly concerned about the domestic situation.
8:56 am
unfortunately now that they're are reaching out to be more active in the region, you seeing they are not experienced at it and they are causing more trouble. perhaps it was better when they were not as active. host: our subject is. our guest is patrick clawson with the near east policy institute. caller: i am concerned about the fact iran is sponsoring terrorists all over the world, and we sent them a lot of money we should have kept. host: how do you respond to that? guest: it is true the state department report issued this last week that iran was a did fight again as the principal state-sponsored terrorism. and iran has been involved in sponsoring terrorist attacks, including in washington. the restaurant they plan on
8:57 am
blowing up with blocks from my house. iran has been very involved in supporting terrorists around the world. that has been one of the biggest differences between the united states and iran about this matter. host: our last call is rob joining us from missouri. thank you for waiting. go ahead with your comment or question. 1963, iran nationalized its own oil production. shell oil and bidders -- british petroleum did not want that to happen. the next 26 years, our man was in charge. people in iran got tired of that. the money they keep line to our people about -- keep lying to
8:58 am
, the feeling of the american people is we paid that. it was their money in the first place. it reminds me of what happened startedny when they charging people all over europe. that is not right. host: thank you. guest: the caller got a few points twisted but his basic point was that in 1953, the united states helped to overthrow the government in iran. many iranians still resent that. as for resources, the majority of the money iran has gotten because of the nuclear deal is iranian money that was frozen under sanctions rather than from the court lawsuit from the 1979 revolution. everybody agreed that was iran's money. the question was whether or not
8:59 am
iran should have free access to it. host: this president trump to renew in another 90 days? guest: all it does is trigger and a dotted vote in congress not to impose u.s. sanctions. very few sanctions were lifted. hether the is united states goes to other countries and says iran is not living up to its part of the deal. that could trigger international crisis. host: is that likely? , the trump people want to shift the attention away from the nuclear deal to iran's actions in general. host: patrick clawson, thank you for being with us. the president for the christening of the uss gerald saying to every patriot
9:00 am
that will serve on board. yesterday is online any time at c-span.org. 50 years ago this morning, the riots that broke out in the city of detroit continued for five days. we will hear from one person who on our podcast. the chair of the howard university history department and brenda lawrence as we look back on 50 years ago today. "washington journal" continues on the sunday morning. we are back in a moment.

12 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on